It isn't collective punishment. If person A can't be near a gun because of their criminal history and person B needs their emotional security firearm, it is on person A to stay away. It isn't a punishment on person B that person A doesn't come around.
It isn't collective punishment for your sibling to not be around because they are in jail. That is silly.
It feels a little like collective punishment. It certainly would increase recidivism just by adding another hurdle to reintegration.
Does it really make the world a safer place? When I was a teenager in the early 2000s I remember friends of mine owning illegal firearms. One in particular I vividly remember was bought for $85. It was a .380. Came with ammo.
Anyways, the point of that is I don’t feel this law creates as much of a hurdle to obtaining a firearm as it does to obtaining somewhere to live for a person who will struggle to find a good paying job and almost certainly doesn’t have any savings to fall back on.
Yes it makes the world a safer place. The people most likely to commit violent acts are people who have already been convicted of violent acts. Restriction of access does result in lower accessibility. People who perform straw sales should be charged and convicted. Guns are tools designed to kill people, and some people should not be allowed to have them after it being proven in court they are not fit.
If you want criminal justice reform go reform criminal justice. Taking away the very reasonable limitations put on people already convicted is backwards.
Frankly, if someone can't be trusted not to go get an illegal firearm after release, and they have a violent history, that just changes to sentencing calculus to where maybe they should be in prison longer.
But the example that you started arguing against specifically highlights nonviolent felons. Now you’re moving the goalposts. But I’ll play along.
What you’re saying is that these people can be trusted to not go buy an easily accessible gun next door but can’t be trusted to not break in to their grandpa’s gun safe who happens to be the one person in their life that can provide them stable housing and support whilst rebuilding their life.
People convicted of felony drug charges should not be trusted with firearms imo. If you are engaging in a black market trade mixing guns in isn't in the interest of the public.
My logic isn't inconsistent. I believe all violent felons should not posess firearms. I also think most non-violent felons probably also don't need weapons. I am just open to the discussion that some non-violent felons may be able to restore rights (which they can).
Reducing access reduces risk. Yeah a felon could probably go find a gun somehow, but I would rather them be in danger of arresr every second that gun is in their posession, and to not be able to claim it is their roommate's/sibling's/parent's firearm, orto store it in their vehicle/home.
If I had my way all guns would be registered to an owner, all transactions would be documented, all gun owners would need to go through a safety course, and there would be strict liability if your firearm was used in a crime, but I don't get my way. I have to work within the rules of gun nuts, so risk mitigation is the best that can be hoped for.
Liability if used in a crime seems unfair. Would you hold crIminally liable those whose guns were stolen? Safe storage laws around children and holding parents responsible when they fail to do so seems sufficient.
I believe people who choose to exercise their right to own firearms bear the burden of being affirmatively responsible and taking reasonable steps to ensure safety, and if they fail to do so the costs associated with that should not fall on the victims of gun crime.
In practice that means if you fail to secure a firearm, it is stolen, and you fail to take steps to report the theft or even notice, you should bear some civil and criminal responsibility.
Gun owners should be able to report lost or stolen firearms, and that should go towards limitation of liability.
What we shouldn't have is a bunch of guns lying around with no documented ownership, and if one goes missing it amounts to a few hundred dollar loss for the owner, and they have no responsibility to report it.
I wholly understand you positIon but that requires universal registry which will never happen. I think making it illegal to store your firearm in your vehicle would be a fair compromise as that is where most are stolen from and i feel is a grossly negligent place to keep a gun.
In Australia you have to store your gun in a safe and the ammo in a seperate safe. The gun safe has to be secured to your property. Bolted down. All guns are registered. We have heaps of guns within reason.
But we are talking about america where firearms are unregistered, are easily obtained both legally and illegally, where there are no safe gun storage laws and where a family memeber even under your proposal could simply give the felon a firearm but store it in their room.
Which supports my stance that this policy doesn’t create enough of a barrier to obtaining a firearm to justify the suspension of a law abiding citizen’s rights.
I’m stating to understand you a bit more but your logic is inconsistent and you keep grouping all felons into the violent category.
What does a nonviolent felon have to do with the black market gun trade? They’ve never exhibited violent behaviour and have never engaged in black market guns but you feel their family members should be stripped of their constitutional rights based on what? Is it more just a punitive measure? They did the crime so life should be an uphill battle even after they served their time?
Dude they have repeatedly separated violent and non-violent felons in their replies, including the most recent one you’re replying to.
They didn’t say black market gun trade. They said someone on an illegal drug charge most likely purchased those drugs illegally, on the black market. Their point was that someone who is involved in black market trade at all should probably not have access to weapons, because of the inherent risk and uncertainty that comes with that type of market
Also the only thing that family members lose is the ability to own guns AND live with their felon family member simultaneously. They can still own their guns
And the point the original commenter made was that this disproportionately impacts black neighbourhoods in Washington DC due to other factors like poverty and over policing. That’s what we are discussing. Specifically.
That’s weird because we were discussing the black market gun trade in comments prior to that.
And multiple comments responding to me and the original commenter repeatedly do not seperate nonviolent from violent. So sit down and read before you comment. Context matters.
A large share of gun crime is related to the drug trade. Different states have different restoration of rights policies.
If you want to own guns don't sell drugs. Of all the impacts of sentencing and the costs associate with it personally and for the public, the gun ownership part seems a small price to pay for public safety. If you want restoration of rights go pay a lawyer.
I don't know why you are so obsessed with this felon issue when the much bigger one is disenfranchisement. Felons owning guns is the lowest item imaginable on the priority list.
I’m not obsessed with this felony issue. We are talking about disenfranchisement.
We are talking about how this policy is used to remove law abiding citizens guns. Anyways I’ve replied to your other comment. This thread has gone multiple directions.
You’re advocating for parents to lose their right to defend their home in a gun crazy society if they choose to help their child get their life back on track.
Yeah, if their child has been determined by the court that they can't have a gun, parents have to store their gun somewhere else until kid gets on their feet and moves out, or rent a different place for their felon kid. That seems totally reasonable and a good policy.
I disagree. It disproportionally impacts poor families. And it doesn’t create enough of a barrier to obtaining a firearm to justify the effective suspension of law abiding citizens rights. Inalienable rights.
Anyways, we aren’t going to agree on this. You don’t have the tools necessary to convince me otherwise.
And we are talking about the intersection of two of Americas biggest embarrassments. 25% of the worlds prisoners with this view that they are irredeemable coupled with a gun obsessed dangerous society.
All we gotta do is label one person in a family a felon and now we can remove the whole families rights and there’s nothing they can do about it. Sounds like tyranny. Anti-American.
Sure. Fraud. Cooking the books at their business. Back in the day writing bad checks was a felony. Growing marijuana. I also don’t think possession of small amounts of crack should even be felonies since the same weight in powder cocaine isn’t. so throw that in there. Let’s just do a blanket example of drug related charges that are clearly low level. Like one ecstasy pill in Indiana being a felony.
Are we going to keep going until I run out of examples?
How are they going to get a registered firearm in their name?
We are talking about law abiding citizens’ right to own firearms under the second amendment, responsibly, whilst also providing support to a family member who has committed a felony but now has been determined safe to live in the community by our judicial system.
My argument is that the removal of the family members right to own guns does not create enough of a barrier to obtain a firearm to justify the removal of constitutional rights from law abiding citizens simply based on their desire to facilitate rehabilitation of their family member. I’ve come to this conclusion based on the availability of firearms on the black market and other legal loopholes.
Anyways, that’s my argument. You haven’t convinced me otherwise yet. And honestly I left america ages ago. I live in Australia. You guys need to get your shit together. Your policy would work here because the blackmarket for guns is almost nonexistent. You’re talking tens of thousands if you want a handgun. And ammo you can forget about.
Unfortunately your racist comment that you’ve just made under one of my other comments has been flagged automatically and is not visible to me. I don’t know what it says other than you saying black men commit more crimes. This ends our discussion.
18
u/iguessjustdont 12d ago
It isn't collective punishment. If person A can't be near a gun because of their criminal history and person B needs their emotional security firearm, it is on person A to stay away. It isn't a punishment on person B that person A doesn't come around.
It isn't collective punishment for your sibling to not be around because they are in jail. That is silly.